- Email: [email protected]
Product difficulty incongruity and consumer evaluations of brand extensions
ARTICLE IN PRESS Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 340–348
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser
Product difficulty incongruity and consumer evaluations of brand extensions Yeqing Bao a,, Shibin Sheng b, Innocent Nkwocha c a b c
College of Business Administration, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA School of Business, Adelphi University, Garden City, NY 11530, USA College of Business & Applied Professional Sciences, South Carolina State University, Orangeburg, SC 29117, USA
a r t i c l e in f o
Keywords: Brand extension Difficulty incongruity Need for cognition
a b s t r a c t Ever since the appearance of Aaker and Keller’s (1990) seminal article, the brand extension research stream has intensively investigated factors that impact consumer evaluations of brand extensions. However, the main effect of product difficulty and the interactions between the parent brand quality and fit variables have not been consistent across studies. We conjecture that this inconclusiveness of findings is due to an equivocal conceptualization and operationalization of the key concepts – product difficulty and product difficulty incongruity. The existing studies mainly focus on product difficulty, i.e., the perceived difficulty level of designing and making the extension, whereas the latter refers to the difference between consumers’ perceptions of the difficulty of designing and making the parent product and the difficulty in designing and making the extension product. We specifically propose that product difficulty incongruity will negatively impact consumer evaluation of brand extensions, and this negative effect is stronger for high parent brand quality and consumers with high levels of need for cognition. The findings from two empirical studies well support our predictions. & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Brand extension is a marketing strategy in which a firm manufactures and markets a product with a well-established same parent brand name but in a different product category. In the 1990s, 81% of new products are introduced by brand extension (Keller, 1998). For instance, P&G’s Whitestrip used its Crest parent brand name and is one of its most successful new product launches. Ever since the appearance of Aaker and Keller’s (1990) seminal article, ‘‘Consumer evaluations of brand extensions,’’ a stream of research has emerged, interested in how consumers evaluate brand extensions and how firms might develop brand equity (e.g., Barwise, 1993; Bottomley and Doyle, 1996; Bridges et al., 2000; Czellar, 2003; Shocker et al., 1994). To date, however, these studies have not definitely converged on the way consumers evaluate brand extensions. Based on an analysis of eight such studies, Bottomley and Holden (2001) find support for the main effects of the parent brand quality and the fit between the parent and extension product categories (i.e., transferability, complementarity, and substitutability), as proposed by Aaker and Keller. However, the main effect of product difficulty, i.e., ‘‘the perceived difficulty of designing and making the extension product’’ (Aaker and Keller, 1990, p. 30), and the interactions between the parent brand quality and fit variables have not been consistent across studies. These effects
Corresponding author. Tel.: + 1 256 824 6165; fax: + 1 256 824 6328.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (Y. Bao). 0969-6989/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2010.03.015
achieve statistical significance in some studies but not in others. In fact, in a recent comprehensive study examining the drivers of brand extension success, product difficulty was excluded because ¨ it had only minor influence in prior studies (Volckner and Sattler, 2006). One could account for inconsistent findings like these by considering factors such as consumers’ culture, subjects’ brand knowledge, brand image, and firms’ positioning strategies across countries (Aaker and Keller, 1993; Bottomley and Holden, 2001). In light of their findings, Bottomley and Holden suggest that we cannot yet make firm conclusions about how consumers evaluate brand extensions based on only a handful of studies. They call for replication and secondary analysis so as to continue the development of knowledge in this area and to increase the level of confidence in scholarly empirical findings. In accord with Bottomley and Holden’s view, this paper examines the role of product difficulty incongruity in consumers’ brand extension evaluations, where the incongruity refers to the difference between consumers’ perceptions of the difficulty firms face in designing and making the parent product and the difficulty in designing and making the extension product. Aaker and Keller (1990) originally propose that the perceived difficulty of making the extension would affect consumers’ evaluation of brand extension because of a potential incongruity between a quality brand and a trivial product class. However, researchers have usually tested this hypothesis using the perceived difficulty of designing and making the extension products rather than incorporating the concept of incongruity. We argue that the incongruity as described by Aaker and Keller occurs as a result of consumers comparing two objects, one of which is the difficulty of
ARTICLE IN PRESS Y. Bao et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 340–348
designing and making the extension products. In essence, previous studies have tested the product difficulty proposition using mismatched variables. As an alternative, we propose to test this proposition by studying the incongruity between parent product difficulty and extension product difficulty. Such a view is consistent with the notion that the concept congruence between the parent product and the extension product plays an important role in consumer evaluation of brand extension (Nan, 2006; Johnson and Folks, 2007; Walchli, 2007). In addition, conceptually, product difficulty incongruity could reflect two scenarios. One possibility, according to Aaker and Keller (1990), suggests that a quality brand extends to a trivial product class (e.g., Heineken beer extends to popcorn). Another suggests that a quality brand extends to an even more complex and difficult product category (e.g., McDonald’s meal extends to theme park). Researchers have provided substantial arguments for the first scenario but have ignored the second scenario. This theoretical gap, together with the observed mismatch between theory and measurements, may further explain the lack of consensus in earlier work regarding the effect of extension product difficulty on consumer evaluations of brand extensions. The current research aims to address such gaps in the brand extension literature. We report results from two incremental studies. Study 1 verifies that product difficulty incongruity indeed contributes to consumers’ evaluations of brand extensions better than does the extension product difficulty. Further, the impact of incongruity appears more salient given higher quality parent brands. Study 2 replicates the findings in Study 1, and also demonstrates how a personality variable, need for cognition (NFC), interacts with product difficulty incongruity; the effect of incongruity appears stronger for individuals with high NFC. This strongly supports the reasoning of Aaker and Keller (1990). Overall, the findings suggest important implications for both researchers and managerial practices.
341
different perceptions of the parent brand in the first place. Alternatively, two individuals might perceive different amount of incongruity between a parent brand and its extension, even if they perceive the same levels of difficulty in designing and making the extension products, because they have different perceptions of the parent brand in the first place. Thus, it would be problematic in testing the DIFFICULT hypothesis as proposed by Aaker and Keller if one supplants the perceived incongruity with the perceived difficulty of the extension product. Unfortunately, that’s what previous studies have been doing. When applied in regression models, perceived difficulty and perceived incongruity show similar effects only when the difficulty perception of the parent brand is the same across consumers. Second, Aaker and Keller appear to have considered only one side of brand extension, i.e., a quality brand extending to a relatively simple or easy-to-make product category. However, a firm might decide to extend a quality brand to a more difficult and more complex product category. For example, the brewer of Budweiser beer extended to the amusement park industry, creating Busch Gardens, and Honda extended to the automobile industry from its original motorcycle business. In such a case, Aaker and Keller’s argument would not apply because such an extension is not a trivial event any more, thus price exploitation would not be an issue. Rather, it would be a challenge for the focal company. A different judgmental process might have formed in consumers’ mind should the perceived incongruity still affect consumers’ attitude toward the extension. In summary, in order to examine the role of product difficulty in consumer evaluations of brand extensions as originally theorized by Aaker and Keller, we must pursue the concept of difficulty incongruity rather than only pursue the perceived difficulty of the extension product.
2.2. Effect of product difficulty incongruity 2. Conceptual development 2.1. Product difficulty vs. difficulty incongruity As previously discussed, past research suggests a number of factors might account for the inconsistency of empirical results relating to Aaker and Keller’s (1990) hypothesis on product difficulty. However, the possibility of a theory-measurement mismatch remains unexplored. Aaker and Keller (p. 30) note that ‘‘when consumers perceived the extended product class to be ‘trivial’ or very easy to make (i.e., DIFFICULT is low), a potential incongruity occurs. The consumers may view the combination of a quality brand and a trivial product class as inconsistent or even exploitative. The incongruity itself may trigger a rejection or it might lead to a judgment that the quality name will add a price higher than is justified and necessary for such a product.’’ Based on this logic, they conjecture that ‘‘the relationship between the difficulty of making the product class of the extension, DIFFICULT, and the attitude toward the extension is positive.’’ Consider two issues here. First, what Aaker and Keller propose is a potential incongruity between a quality brand and a ‘‘trivial’’ extension product. As such, two components should be present. One is the perception of the difficulty level of manufacturing the parent brand, and the other is the perception of the difficulty level of manufacturing the extension product. It is the difference between these two difficulty perceptions that represents the potential incongruity. Two individuals might perceive the same amount of incongruity between a parent brand and its extension, even if they perceive different levels of difficulty in designing and making the extension products, because they have
Following Aaker and Keller’s original conceptualization, we define product difficulty incongruity in brand extensions as the discrepancy between consumers’ perceived difficulty in designing and making the parent product category and that in designing and making the extension product category. When the perceived difficulty of the parent product category exceeds that of the extension category, the difficulty incongruity may lead consumers to judge that the parent brand may charge a price higher than justified and necessary for the extension product. However, when the perceived difficulty of the parent product category is lower than that of the extension category, consumers would employ a different heuristic. Such an inconsistency may make consumers suspicious and uncertain about the company’s capability and experience in making the extension product, thus worsening their attitudes toward the brand extensions. We thus propose the following hypothesis: H1. Difficulty incongruity has a negative impact on consumer evaluations of brand extensions. As previously discussed, when consumers perceive greater difficulty in making the parent product than making the extension product, they may view the extension as an exploitative attempt and thus exhibit negative attitude toward the extension. A high quality brand is usually priced higher than a low quality brand. This would give a high quality brand more opportunities and greater momentum to charge a high price for its extension products. This is exactly what consumers are concerned about. Therefore, the perception of a high parent brand quality can reinforce the negative effect of difficulty incongruity, resulting in
ARTICLE IN PRESS 342
Y. Bao et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 340–348
a greater likelihood for consumers to attribute an exploitation motive to the extension practice. When consumers perceive greater difficulty in making the extension product than making the parent product, they may question its capability to deliver high quality in the extension, leading to an unfavorable attitude toward the extension. Firms engage in brand extensions with the hope that the positive attitude toward the parent product will transfer to the extensions. The higher the parent product quality, the higher expectations consumers will have about the brand, creating greater challenges for the manufacturer to develop the extension and match up such expectations. Thus, the same amount of difficulty incongruity would have a greater impact on consumers’ attitudes toward brand extensions for a high-quality parent brand than for lowquality parent brand. These arguments lead to the following hypothesis:
measures for parent brand quality, attitude toward the extension, and perceived fit (transferability, complementarity, and substitutability), perceived difficulty of making products (for both the extension product and the parent product) are adopted from Aaker and Keller (1990). Among them, attitude toward the extension was measured by two items and the rest by single items, all on 7-point Likert scales. The two items measuring attitude toward the extension resulted in high reliability, ranging from .80 to .85 across the various extensions. Consistent with the conceptualization, we measure the product difficulty incongruity as the absolute difference between the perceived difficulty of making the parent product and that of making the extension product. Thus, the incongruity score ranges from 0 to 6, with a greater score meaning higher incongruity. Table 1 shows the means and correlations for these variables.
H2. The negative impact of difficulty incongruity on consumers’ attitude toward brand extensions is stronger when the perceived quality of the parent brand is high than when it is low.
3.3. Analyses and results
3. Study 1
Comparisons with previous studies: As a replication of Aaker and Keller (1990), we first ran the following moderated regression model (cf. Aiken and West, 1991; Jaccard et al., 1990): Attitude toward the extension ¼ b0 þ b1 qualityþ b2 transferability þb3 complementarityþ b4 substitutability
3.1. Stimuli and procedure To test the research hypotheses, we gathered survey data from an empirical study. Pretests were conducted to assure that the products and brands used in the study were familiar, affordable, and represented relatively good quality to respondents. As a result, we selected four as parent brands: Texas Instruments calculators, Bounty paper towels, Timex watches, and Glad trash bags. Each brand was extended to six different products: bar soap, personal computer, laundry detergent, ball point pen, ketchup, and instant soup. Thus, in total, the study featured four parent brands and 24 proposed extensions. To reduce potential fatigue among the respondents, we designed and administered eight different questionnaires, each consisting of one of the four parent brands and three hypothetical extensions (see Appendix A for the experimental design). Respondents were asked to indicate their perceptions of parent brand quality, extension evaluation, and the fit between the parent brands and the extensions. In total, 210 college students participated in the study as a course requirement. They were randomly disbursed to the eight extension conditions. 3.2. Measures Consistent with past studies (Bottomley and Doyle, 1996; Bottomley and Holden, 2001; Sunde and Brodie, 1993), our
þ b5 quality transferabilityþ b6 quality complementarityþ b7 quality substitutabilityþ b8 difficulty þ error: This regression model contains three two-way interaction terms, representing the moderating effects of fit variables. To minimize possible multicollinearity in the regression containing interaction terms, each scale utilized in constructing the interaction terms was mean centered (Aiken and West, 1991; Jaccard et al., 1990). As a result of this mean-centering procedure, no substantial correlations between the interaction terms and their components remained. The largest variance inflation factor (VIF) in the regression containing interaction terms is 1.83 (see Table 2), substantially lower than the critical multicollinearity threshold of 10.0 (Myers, 1990). Therefore, multicollinearity does not appear to be a significant concern in this regression. Further examination of the regression results (see Table 2) indicates that the estimated model explains 25% of variation in brand extension evaluation, an amount significantly greater than zero (F ¼26.75, df¼8, po.001). Consistent with Aaker and Keller (1990), as well as most other subsequent studies (see Bottomley and Holden, 2001 for a review), the perceived product class fit measures-transferability, complementarity, and substitutability – all have statistically significant or marginally significant positive effects on consumers’ attitudes toward brand extensions (for complementarity, t ¼1.71, p¼ .09).
Table 1 Correlations, means, and standard deviations in Study 1.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Variable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Parent brand quality Brand extension evaluation Transferability Complementarity Substitutability Difficulty of making extension product Difficulty incongruity
1.00 .05 .07 .00 .04 .08* .04
1.00 .48** .33** .38** .18** .26**
1.00 .55** .56** .27** .24**
1.00 .41** .18** .17**
1.00 .23** .20**
1.00 .07
1.00
Mean S.D.
5.22 1.49
3.12 1.79
2.90 1.93
3.01 2.14
2.54 1.97
4.01 1.89
1.63 1.72
Note: *p o .05, ** p o.01.
ARTICLE IN PRESS Y. Bao et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 340–348
However, the main effect of the perceived quality of the parent brand is not significant. This differs from findings in past studies, as summarized by Bottomley and Holden (2001), wherein the perceived quality of the parent brand has a positive significant effect on consumers’ attitudes toward brand extensions. We suspect that this reflects the relatively skewed distribution of perceived quality of the parent brand in our data (mean¼5.22, S.D.¼1.49, skewness¼ .66). On the other hand, Bottomley and Holden find that at the individual brand extension level, 43.8% of the extension scenarios, parent brand quality has no significant effect on consumers’ attitudes toward brand extensions. Thus, this insignificant effect is not completely surprising. Regarding the moderating effects, none of the three interactions between product fit and perceived quality of the parent brand emerges as significant. This is not unexpected given the lack of consensus on these effects in previous studies (Bottomley and Holden, 2001). The main effect of the perceived difficulty of extension products also appears insignificant. Bottomley and Holden indicate that about half of the previous studies they reviewed reported insignificance with respect to this relationship, although every study that modeled the effect found a positive sign, as we do.
Table 2 Results based on Aaker and Keller’s (1990) model in Study 1. Independent variables
Unstd. B Std. error tValue
Constant 3.12 Parent brand quality .03 Transferability .33 Complementarity .06 Substitutability .14 Parent quality transferability .01 Parent quality complementarity .02 Parent quality substitutability .03 Difficulty of making brand extension .04
.06 .04 .04 .04 .04 .03 .02 .03 .03
50.19 .60 7.54 1.71 3.69 .34 .99 1.27 1.06
Sig. VIF
.00 .55 .00 .09 .00 .73 .32 .21 .29
1.02 1.83 1.49 1.53 1.62 1.34 1.45 1.10
Note: Adjusted r2 ¼.26, sample size¼630.
343
Overall, using the model developed by Aaker and Keller (1990), our study shows patterns of results similar to those seen in previous studies. This lends support to the validity of our experimental design and the resulting data. Hypothesis testing: Hypothesis 1 predicts that the incongruity between the perceived difficulty of making the parent product and that of making the extension product has a negative impact on brand extension evaluation. Further, Hypothesis 2 suggests that the impact of this incongruity is stronger when the perceived quality of parent brand is high. To test these hypotheses, we replace the difficulty of making brand extension in the preceding regression model with the difficulty incongruity. Also, we drop the interaction terms between the product fit variables and perceived quality of parent brand for simplicity, since they emerged as insignificant in the first model. This is consistent with Bottomley and Holden’s (2001) notion that the interactions between parent brand quality and the fit variables explains very little additional variance in the consumers’ attitude toward brand extensions (3.8% on average). To test H2, we add an interaction term between difficulty incongruity and parent brand quality to the regression model. As before, measures were mean centered to reduce multicollinearity. Results are presented in Table 3. VIF values in the regression range between 1.01 and 1.81, indicating little concern for multicollinearity. With the presence of both interaction effect and main effect, the interaction effect is examined first. The coefficient is negative and marginally significant (b¼ .04, p ¼.09), supporting H2. Main effects are interpreted in the context of interactions. We divided the sample into three groups based on the perceived parent brand quality, one group with high perceived quality, the second group with middle level of perceived quality, and the third group with low perceived quality. The uneven distribution of cases reflects the predominance of middle-level values in the full sample. A mean comparison between the high and low quality groups indicates significant difference in quality perception of parent brands (Mlowquality ¼3.27, Mhighquality ¼6.53, po.001). Regressions with main effects were then run only in the high and low parent quality groups (see Table 3). Results indicate that
Table 3 Effect of product incongruity in Study 1. Independent variables
Unstd. B
Std. error
t-Value
Sig.
VIF
Constant Parent brand quality Transferability Complementarity Substitutability Difficulty incongruity Difficulty incongruity parent quality
Full sample (n¼ 630) 3.12 .04 .30 .04 .13 .16 .04 Adjusted r2 ¼.27
.06 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .02
51.06 .92 7.13 1.22 3.47 4.24 1.70
.00 .36 .00 .22 .00 .00 .09
1.01 1.81 1.50 1.50 1.08 1.03
Constant Transferability Complementarity Substitutability Difficulty incongruity
High parent brand quality group (n ¼ 153) 3.14 .14 .27 .09 .05 .07 .14 .08 .25 .08 Adjusted r2 ¼.32
23.08 3.00 .75 1.78 3.00
.00 .00 .45 .08 .00
2.28 1.64 1.85 1.17
Constant Transferability Complementarity Substitutability Difficulty incongruity
Low parent brand quality group (n ¼177) 3.20 .10 .36 .07 .11 .06 .25 .06 .00 .06 2 Adjusted r ¼.35
31.07 5.31 1.87 4.00 .04
.00 .00 .06 .00 .97
1.37 1.23 1.24 1.12
ARTICLE IN PRESS 344
Y. Bao et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 340–348
the effect of difficulty incongruity is significant for the high parent quality group (b¼ .25, p¼.00) but insignificant for the low parent quality group (b ¼ .00, p¼ .97). Such results clearly validate H2 and further partially support H1 in the sense that H1 stands when parent quality is high. 3.4. Discussion Consistent with our theoretical proposition, Study 1 shows that the incongruity between the perceived difficulty of parent brand and that of the extension product, as opposed to the perceived difficulty of the extension product itself, has a significant impact on consumers’ attitudes toward brand extensions (H1). Further, such impact appears more salient when the perceived quality of parent brand is high (H2), due to the heightened expectation of a high quality brand. This is fully consistent with Aaker and Keller’s (1990) reasoning of potential incongruity, although previous studies use the perceived difficulty of the extension product to test the reasoning. Given that Study 1 is the first but a single study that examines H1 and H2, replication is needed to generalize the results. Further, although results of Study 1 are consistent with our theoretical reasoning, strictly speaking the rationale itself was not directly tested. As in most research studies, we used the results to indirectly infer the rationale’s soundness. Additional studies examining the rationale from different angles would help rule out potential alternative explanations and increase our confidence in the theory (Klink and Smith, 2001). Therefore, a second study is conducted with two goals. First, it aims to replicate the findings in study 1. Second, it aims to test the rationale underlying H1 and H2 from a different perspective.
4. Study 2 Aaker and Keller (1990, p. 30) argue that the potential incongruity ‘‘may trigger a rejection or it might lead to a judgment that the quality name will add a price higher than is justified and necessary’’ for the extension product. Alternatively, we argue that when the extension product difficulty exceeds that of the parent product, consumers may become suspicious of the company’s capability. In either case, the judgment requires a careful scrutiny of the product cues provided and a deep processing of information by consumers. From an experimentaldesign perspective, such judgments would require considerable mental effort and evaluation by survey respondents. Research in the personality literature has shown that not all people enjoy these sorts of mental activities (see Bettman, 1986; Fiske and Taylor, 1984). Cacioppo and Petty (1982) developed a measure of an individual’s tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive activities, a tendency known as the need for cognition (NFC). Individuals who exhibit greater NFC have a greater intrinsic motivation to engage in effortful cognitive analyses than other individuals, as shown in many subsequent studies (e.g., Cacioppo et al., 1984; Srull et al., 1985). Cacioppo et al. (1986) indicate that individuals with high NFC are more likely to engage in intensive information processing and elaborate cognitively on the information before form attitudes toward the objectives relevant in decision making than those with low NFC. Therefore, individuals with high NFC will engage more mental efforts to process and evaluate the product incongruity information, and more likely to draw the negative attributions about incongruent product extension. As a result, the effect of product difficulty incongruity on consumers’ attitudes toward extensions should emerge as more salient for individuals exhibiting relatively high NFC. This is summarized as the following hypothesis:
H3. The negative impact of difficulty incongruity on consumers’ attitude toward brand extensions is more salient for consumers with high NFC than for consumers with low NFC. 4.1. Stimuli and procedure As in Study 1, we conducted a pretest to develop stimuli by choosing the appropriate brands for the original products and designing sensible brand extensions. Study 1 contains parent brands and extensions in various industries. However, in order to make it easier for the participants to compare the levels of difficulty of making the parent and extension products, we limited both the parent and extension products in the electronics or related industries. This also increased the ‘‘fit’’ between the parent and extension products, making the stimuli more realistic. In total, 37 students participated in the pretest and responded to questions on brand familiarity and perceived quality. Based on the results, we selected four brands for the parent products: Texas Instruments (TI) calculators, Timex watches, Gateway computers, and Olympus cameras. Based on these four parent brands, six brand extensions were chosen: cell phone, pocket PC, printer, battery, recordable compact disc (CD-R), and disposable camera. Thus, this study featured a total of 4 parent brands and 24 proposed brand extensions. As in Study 1, we used eight questionnaires to reduce potential fatigue among the respondents. Each questionnaire consisted of one of the four parent brands and three extensions (see Appendix A for details of the stimuli). Respondents were asked to indicate their perception of parent brand quality, extension evaluations, fit of the brand extensions, and difficulty of manufacturing the parent and extension products. We also measured respondents’ need for cognition and basic demographic information. In total, 240 college students participated, disbursed fairly evenly among the eight questionnaires. Measures for parent brand quality, brand extension evaluation and perceived fit (substitutability, complementarity, and transferability), difficulty of making parent brands and the extension, and difficulty incongruity were the same as in Study 1. We measured need for cognition using the 18-item short form developed by Cacioppo et al. (1984). Sample items include ‘‘The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me’’ and ‘‘I feel relief rather than satisfaction completing a task that required a lot mental effort.’’ All items were on 7-point Likert scales anchoring from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to ‘‘strongly agree.’’ The NFC measure yields a Cronbach alpha of .88. The average of all the items is used as NFC in the following analyses, with a larger score representing higher NFC. Table 4 shows the means and correlations for these variables. 4.2. Analyses and results Comparisons with previous studies: As a replication, we first reran the moderated regression model (1); see Table 5. As in Study 1, scales were mean centered to reduce multicollinearity. The largest variance inflation factor (VIF) in the regression containing interaction terms is 1.44, indicating minimal multicollinearity. Consistent with Study 1 as well as most studies in the literature, the perceived product class fit variables exhibit positive significant effects on consumers’ attitudes toward brand extensions. In Study 1, the main effect of the perceived quality of the parent brand emerged statistically insignificant, but the effect is significant here (b¼.25, p ¼.00), consistent with findings in the literature (Bottomley and Holden, 2001). We suspected that the earlier insignificance of this effect reflected the relatively skewed distribution of perceived quality of the parent brand in the data
ARTICLE IN PRESS Y. Bao et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 340–348
345
Table 4 Correlations, means, and standard deviations in Study 2.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Variable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Parent brand quality Brand extension evaluation Transferability Complementarity Substitutability Difficulty of making extension product Difficulty incongruity Need for Cognition
1.00 .28** .06 .00 .05 .08* .01 .14**
1.00 .30** .18** .23** .09* .06 .13**
1.00 .37** .42** .16** .14** .09*
1.00 .16** .08* .04 .10**
1.00 .14** .02 .18**
1.00 .17** .03
1.00 .01
1.00
5.00 1.49
3.96 1.50
4.24 1.57
4.08 2.21
3.59 2.28
4.71 1.74
1.16 1.40
4.63 1.10
Mean S.D. Note: *p o .05, **p o.01.
Table 5 Results based on Aaker and Keller’s (1990) model in Study 2. Independent variables
Unstd. B Std. error tValue
Constant 3.91 Parent brand quality .25 Transferability .20 Complementarity .05 Substitutability .08 Parent quality transferability .05 Parent quality complementarity .01 Parent quality substitutability .00 Difficulty of making brand extension .01
.15 .04 .04 .03 .03 .03 .02 .02 .03
25.97 7.23 5.13 2.14 3.15 1.97 .48 .07 .34
Sig. VIF
.00 .00 .00 .03 .00 .05 .63 .95 .74
1.02 1.40 1.17 1.23 1.44 1.09 1.38 1.06
Note: Adjusted r2 ¼.17, sample size¼720.
(mean¼ 5.22, S.D. ¼1.49, skewness¼ .66). So, in Study 2, we tried to improve the data distribution by selecting brands of moderate quality. This appears to work. The perceived quality of the parent brand exhibits less Skewness than in Study 1 (mean¼ 5.00, S.D. ¼1.49, skewness¼ .46). Consequently, the results appear more in accord with previous research. The interaction between product transferability and perceived parent quality emerges as significant (b¼.05, p ¼.05). However, as in Study 1, neither of the other two interactions (complementarity quality, substitutability quality) is significant, nor does the main effect of the perceived difficulty of extension products achieve significance. These outcomes are not surprising given the lack of consensus on these effects in previous studies. Overall, using the model developed by Aaker and Keller, Study 2 shows similar patterns in results to Study 1 and previous studies in the literature. This lends support to the essential validity of our experimental design and data in Study 2. Hypothesis testing: In order to test our hypotheses, we once again replaced extension difficulty with difficulty incongruity. Specifically, we regressed brand extension evaluation on parent brand quality, the fit measures, difficulty incongruity, NFC, the interaction term between parent brand quality and difficulty incongruity, and the interaction term between difficulty incongruity and NFC. As before, scales were mean centered to reduce multicollinearity caused by interaction terms. Results are presented in Table 6. The interaction between parent brand quality and difficulty incongruity emerges as negative and significant (b¼ .07, p ¼.01), consistent with H2. We further divided the sample into three groups based on the perceived parent brand quality, one group with high perceived quality, the second group with middle level of perceived quality, and the third group with low perceived quality. A mean comparison between the high and low quality groups indicates significant difference in quality perception of
parent brands (Mlowquality ¼3.28, Mhighquality ¼6.44, po.001). We estimated regressions with main effects only for the high and low parent quality groups. Results reveal a negative, marginally significant main effect of difficulty incongruity in the high quality group, but an insignificant effect in the low quality group. As in Study 1, the results support H1 when the perceived parent brand quality is high. The interaction between NFC and difficulty incongruity is negative and significant (b¼ .10, p ¼.00), consistent with H3. We further divided the sample into three groups based on NFC, one group with high NFC, the second group with middle level of NFC, and the third group with low NFC. A mean comparison between groups of high and low levels of NFC indicates significant difference in NFC (Mlow NFC ¼3.48, Mhigh NFC ¼5.87, po.001). Regressions with only main effects were run in the high and low NFC groups (see Table 6). Results show that the main effect of difficulty incongruity is negative and significant for the high NFC group, but not significant for the low NFC group. It appears that difficulty incongruity affects the brand extension evaluation only if consumers carefully process such information in mind. 4.3. Discussion In general, Study 2 replicates the results of Study 1 in supporting H1 and H2. This consistency between Studies 1 and 2 illustrates robustness of the current findings. Further, by using a personality variable, NFC, Study 2 demonstrates that product difficulty incongruity, a highly abstract concept, affects consumer evaluations of brand extensions only if they carefully scrutinize such information. This supports the underlying rationale regarding the impact of product difficulty incongruity proposed by Aaker and Keller (1990) and extended in the current study.
5. General discussion 5.1. Theoretical implications Since Aaker and Keller’s (1990) seminal article in brand extension, a substantial body of research in this field has appeared. Marketing scholars generally suspect that the perceived difficulty of designing and making an extension product category greatly impacts consumer evaluations of brand extensions (Bottomley and Holden, 2001). However, no consensus regarding the effect of the extension product difficulty has emerged in previous empirical studies. The current research suggests that there may be a mismatch in the literature between the hypothesis test and Aaker and Keller’s original conceptualization. It is the product difficulty incongruity rather than the extension product difficulty itself that should be used in the tests. Results of two
ARTICLE IN PRESS 346
Y. Bao et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 340–348
Table 6 Effect of product incongruity in Study 2. Independent variables
Unstd. B
Std. error
t-Value
Sig.
VIF
Constant Parent brand quality Transferability Complementarity Substitutability Difficulty incongruity Need for cognition (NFC) Parent quality difficulty incongruity NFC difficulty incongruity
Full sample (n¼ 720) 3.97 .25 .18 .05 .08 .00 .06 .07 .10 Adjusted r2 ¼ .18
.05 .04 .04 .03 .03 .04 .06 .02 .03
78.62 7.22 4.78 2.01 3.21 .01 1.05 2.81 3.11
.00 .00 .00 .05 .00 .99 .30 .01 .00
1.02 1.40 1.17 1.25 1.05 1.66 1.03 1.62
Constant Transferability Complementarity Substitutability Difficulty incongruity
High parent brand quality group (n ¼ 291) 4.30 .08 .22 .07 .04 .04 .08 .04 .11 .06 Adjusted r2 ¼ .14
50.77 3.24 .93 1.85 1.81
.00 .00 .35 .07 .07
1.67 1.23 1.38 1.07
Constant Transferability Complementarity Substitutability Difficulty incongruity
Low parent brand quality group (n¼245) 3.51 .09 .13 .07 .06 .04 .06 .05 .09 .06 2 Adjusted r ¼ .07
39.69 1.99 1.36 1.34 1.41
.00 .05 .18 .18 .16
1.45 1.09 1.34 1.02
Constant Parent brand quality Transferability Complementarity Substitutability Difficulty incongruity
High NFC group (n ¼231) 3.85 .30 .21 .07 .01 .17 Adjusted r2 ¼ .19
.09 .06 .07 .04 .05 .07
40.50 5.04 3.11 1.69 .26 2.67
.00 .00 .00 .09 .79 .01
1.01 1.54 1.15 1.33 1.03
Constant Parent brand quality Transferability Complementarity Substitutability Difficulty incongruity
Low NFC group (n ¼ 246) 3.99 .22 .16 .06 .10 .02 Adjusted r2 ¼ .14
.09 .06 .06 .05 .04 .06
45.34 3.62 2.51 1.25 2.33 .38
.00 .00 .01 .21 .02 .70
1.04 1.33 1.18 1.12 1.03
empirical studies support this argument. We also find that the negative impact of difficulty incongruity on consumers’ attitudes toward brand extensions is more salient with high levels of quality of parent brand and need for cognition. This strongly supports the original conceptualization of Aaker and Keller and provides a potential explanation for the inconsistency in the literature regarding the effect of product difficulty on consumer evaluations of brand extensions. The concept of difficulty incongruity reconciles well with the ‘‘fit’’ or ‘‘similarity’’ concept, which Keller (2002) identifies as a key determinant of how consumers evaluate brand extensions. Much previous brand extension research employs a categorization perspective to investigate consumers’ cognitive evaluation processes (Broniarczyk and Alba, 1994; Boush and Loken, 1991; Chakravarti et al., 1990). The categorization perspective suggests that the greater the feature overlaps between items, the greater the likelihood that consumers will perceive the items as belonging to the same cognitive category, and thus base their evaluations of the extension on their attitudes toward the parent brand. Besides the three dimensions of fit (transferability, complementarity, and substitutability), difficulty incongruity itself represents a type of ‘‘fit,’’ as it captures the similarity
between the parent brand and the extension product in terms of the difficulty of making them. The current research may serve to broaden the concept of ‘‘fit’’ as employed in the brand extension research, in that difficulty incongruity appears to have a significant influence on consumer evaluations of brand extensions just as other fit dimensions do.
5.2. Managerial implications Marketers commonly use brand extensions as a way to capitalize on established brands, because such extensions can facilitate acceptance of the new product or service. Firms often produce an extended brand to take advantage of manufacturing and marketing synergies between the two products. The technological synergies often appear meaningful to consumers and may provide the basis for a perceived similarity between the parent and extension product categories (Chakravarti et al., 1990). Our results demonstrate that a company should consider not only the difficulty level of the extension but also the difficulty level of the parent product category. A downward shifting of difficulty level from parent product to the extension product will make the
ARTICLE IN PRESS Y. Bao et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 340–348
extension practice vulnerable to consumers’ suspicions of the company’s exploitation intention. On the other hand, an upward shifting of difficulty level will also cause consumers to question the quality of the extension because such extension might lie beyond the company’s technological capability. As an example, Harley Davidson might reasonably extend its brand to either passenger cars or motor scooters, given favorable transferability, complementarity and substitutability characteristics. But the difficulty incongruity between making motorcycles and passenger cars or motor scooters might lead to unfavorable consumer evaluations of these extensions. Marketing practitioners must be very cautious and consider potential consumer responses when attempting to capitalize their technology advantage into brand extensions.
5.3. Future research As with most research, insights lead to additional questions. There are three conceptual caveats merit further theoretical elaboration and empirical investigation. First, this study does not distinguish two different scenarios of difficulty incongruity: when the parent product is perceived to be more difficult to make than the extension and the reverse. As we argued earlier, the difficulty incongruity may lead to an unfavorable attitude toward the extension but with different rationales. For the first scenario, consumers might perceive the extension as an exploitative attempt of the manufacturer to capitalize on a strong brand image, whereas in the second scenario, consumers may question the extension because they suspect it lies beyond the company’s technological capability. Future research identifying consumers’ rationales in the evaluative process for these two situations will help us further understand the effect of difficulty incongruity and develop the appropriate marketing mix to promote the extension.
347
Secondly, in Hypothesis 2, we propose that difficulty incongruity will have a weaker negative impact on evaluation of the extension when the quality of parent product is low, because overall consumers will have lower expectations for low quality parent brands. However, an alternative explanation to this moderating effect is that parent brands with lower quality may simply result in uniformly weak evaluations of the extensions, regardless of the level of difficulty incongruity. Future research designed to elucidate this alternative explanation can provide further understanding of the rationale of this moderating effect. In addition, we propose a moderating effect of NFC to manifest the mechanism through which product incongruity negatively impact extension evaluation. However, this study does not explicitly manipulate subjects’ motivation to process the information about difficulty incongruity. Therefore, it still does not provide direct evidence of the role of NFC. Further research is merited to explicate the rationale of the negative impact of difficulty incongruity. Although the current study suggests an explanation for the inconsistency in previous research regarding the role of product difficulty in consumer evaluations of brand extensions, other inconsistencies remain. For example, as Bottomley and Holden (2001) discusses, inconsistencies also exist regarding the effects of interactions between the parent brand quality and fit variables on consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Their call for both replication and secondary analyses in the development of empirical generalizations remains compelling.
Appendix A See Table A1 for the experimental design and details of the stimuli.
Table A1 Experiment designs and cell means. Parent products
Mean of quality perception
Extension products
Mean of attitude toward extension
Mean of difficulty incongruity
Study 1 Texas instruments (TI) calculators
5.98
Bar soap Personal computer Laundry detergent Ball pen Ketchup Instant soup
2.40 5.06 2.52 5.10 1.54 1.36
2.32 .84 2.16 1.72 3.24 3.48
Bounty paper towels
4.84
Bar soap Personal computer Laundry detergent Ball pen Ketchup Instant soup
3.69 1.90 3.92 3.66 3.20 3.02
.96 2.96 1.11 .96 1.12 1.92
Timex watches
5.19
Bar soap Personal computer Laundry detergent Ball pen Ketchup Instant soup
2.63 3.78 2.55 4.76 2.14 2.14
1.25 3.29 1.04 .63 1.00 1.13
Glad trash bags
4.84
Bar soap Personal computer Laundry detergent Ball pen Ketchup Instant soup
2.63 2.08 2.69 4.23 3.45 3.28
.85 1.00 .85 1.48 2.36 2.32
Study 2 Texas instruments (TI) calculators
5.98
Cell phone Pocket pc
3.68 4.30
1.03 1.28
ARTICLE IN PRESS 348
Y. Bao et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 340–348
Table A1 (continued ) Parent products
Mean of quality perception
Extension products
Mean of attitude toward extension
Mean of difficulty incongruity
Printer Battery Cd-R Disposable camera
4.05 4.52 4.21 3.91
1.03 .86 1.31 1.34
Timex watches
4.82
Cell phone Pocket pc Printer Battery CD-R Disposable camera
3.66 3.68 3.63 4.53 4.07 3.77
1.42 1.77 1.48 .63 1.27 1.20
Gateway computers
4.83
Cell phone Pocket pc Printer Battery CD-R Disposable Camera
3.00 3.82 4.35 4.20 4.68 4.00
.60 .77 1.27 1.40 1.10 2.03
Olympus cameras
4.36
Cell Phone Pocket pc Printer Battery CD-R Disposable camera
3.71 3.69 3.95 3.74 3.74 4.29
.68 .78 .96 1.26 1.19 1.10
References Aaker, D.A., Keller, K.L., 1990. Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing 54 (1), 27–41. Aaker, D.A., Keller, K.L., 1993. Interpreting cross-cultural replications of brand extension research. International Journal of Research in Marketing 10 (1), 55–59. Aiken, L.S., West, S.G., 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, London. Barwise, P. (Ed.), 1993. Editorial: introduction to the special issue on brand equity, International Journal of Research in Marketing 10 (1), 3–8. Bettman, J.R., 1986. Consumer psychology. Annual Review of Psychology 37, 257–290. Bottomley, P.A., Doyle, J.R., 1996. The formation of attitudes towards brand extensions: testing and generalizing Aaker and Keller’s model. International Journal of Research in Marketing 13 (4), 365–377. Bottomley, P.A., Holden, S.J.S., 2001. Do we really know how consumers evaluate brand extensions? Empirical generalizations based on secondary analysis of eight studies. Journal of Marketing Research 38 (November), 494–500. Boush, D., Loken, B., 1991. A process tracing study of brand extension evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research 28 (2), 16–28. Bridges, S., Keller, K., Sood, S., 2000. Communication strategies for brand extensions: enhancing perceived fit by establishing explanatory links. Journal of Advertising 29 (4), 1–11. Broniarczyk, S.M., Alba, J.W., 1994. The importance of the brand in brand extension. Journal of Marketing Research 31 (2), 214–228. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., 1982. The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42, 116–131. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Kao, C.F., 1984. The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment 48 (3), 306–307. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Kao, C.F., Rodriguez, R., 1986. Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: an individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 1032–1043. Chakravarti, D., MacInnis, D.J., Nakamoto, K., 1990. Product category perspective, elaborative processing and brand name. In: Golberg, G., Pllay, R. (Eds.),
Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 17. Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 910–916. Czellar, S., 2003. Consumer attitude toward brand extensions: an integrative model and research proposition. International Journal of Research in Marketing 20 (1), 97–115. Fiske, S.T., Taylor, S., 1984. Social Cognition. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., Wan, C.K., 1990. Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression. Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Johnson, A.R., Folks, V., 2007. How consumers’ assessments of manufacturing a product influence quality perception. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 35 (2), 317–328. Keller, K.L., 1998. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Keller, K.L., 2002. Branding and brand management. In: Weitz, B., Wensley, R. (Eds.), Handbook of Marketing. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 151–178. Klink, R.R., Smith, D.C., 2001. Threats of the external validity of brand extension research. Journal of Marketing Research 38 (August), 326–335. Myers, R., 1990. Classical and Modern Regression with Applications, second ed. Duxbury Press, Boston, MA. Nan, X., 2006. Affective cues and brand-extension evaluation: exploring the influence of attitude toward the parent brand and attitude toward the extension ad. Psychology & Marketing 23 (7), 597–616. Shocker, A.D., Srivastava, R.K., Ruekert, R.W., 1994. Challenges and opportunities facing brand management: an introduction to the special issue. Journal of Marketing Research 31 (2), 149–158. Srull, T., Lichenstein, M., Rothbart, M., 1985. Associated storage and retrieval processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 11 (2), 316–345. Sunde, L., Brodie, R.J., 1993. Consumer evaluations of brand extensions: further empirical evidence. International Journal of Research in Marketing 10 (1), 47–53. ¨ Volckner, F., Sattler, H., 2006. Drivers of brand extension success. Journal of Marketing 70 (2), 18–34. Walchli, S.B., 2007. The effects of between-partner congruity on consumer evaluation of co-branded products. Psychology & Marketing 24 (11), 947–957.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser
Product difficulty incongruity and consumer evaluations of brand extensions Yeqing Bao a,, Shibin Sheng b, Innocent Nkwocha c a b c
College of Business Administration, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA School of Business, Adelphi University, Garden City, NY 11530, USA College of Business & Applied Professional Sciences, South Carolina State University, Orangeburg, SC 29117, USA
a r t i c l e in f o
Keywords: Brand extension Difficulty incongruity Need for cognition
a b s t r a c t Ever since the appearance of Aaker and Keller’s (1990) seminal article, the brand extension research stream has intensively investigated factors that impact consumer evaluations of brand extensions. However, the main effect of product difficulty and the interactions between the parent brand quality and fit variables have not been consistent across studies. We conjecture that this inconclusiveness of findings is due to an equivocal conceptualization and operationalization of the key concepts – product difficulty and product difficulty incongruity. The existing studies mainly focus on product difficulty, i.e., the perceived difficulty level of designing and making the extension, whereas the latter refers to the difference between consumers’ perceptions of the difficulty of designing and making the parent product and the difficulty in designing and making the extension product. We specifically propose that product difficulty incongruity will negatively impact consumer evaluation of brand extensions, and this negative effect is stronger for high parent brand quality and consumers with high levels of need for cognition. The findings from two empirical studies well support our predictions. & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Brand extension is a marketing strategy in which a firm manufactures and markets a product with a well-established same parent brand name but in a different product category. In the 1990s, 81% of new products are introduced by brand extension (Keller, 1998). For instance, P&G’s Whitestrip used its Crest parent brand name and is one of its most successful new product launches. Ever since the appearance of Aaker and Keller’s (1990) seminal article, ‘‘Consumer evaluations of brand extensions,’’ a stream of research has emerged, interested in how consumers evaluate brand extensions and how firms might develop brand equity (e.g., Barwise, 1993; Bottomley and Doyle, 1996; Bridges et al., 2000; Czellar, 2003; Shocker et al., 1994). To date, however, these studies have not definitely converged on the way consumers evaluate brand extensions. Based on an analysis of eight such studies, Bottomley and Holden (2001) find support for the main effects of the parent brand quality and the fit between the parent and extension product categories (i.e., transferability, complementarity, and substitutability), as proposed by Aaker and Keller. However, the main effect of product difficulty, i.e., ‘‘the perceived difficulty of designing and making the extension product’’ (Aaker and Keller, 1990, p. 30), and the interactions between the parent brand quality and fit variables have not been consistent across studies. These effects
Corresponding author. Tel.: + 1 256 824 6165; fax: + 1 256 824 6328.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (Y. Bao). 0969-6989/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2010.03.015
achieve statistical significance in some studies but not in others. In fact, in a recent comprehensive study examining the drivers of brand extension success, product difficulty was excluded because ¨ it had only minor influence in prior studies (Volckner and Sattler, 2006). One could account for inconsistent findings like these by considering factors such as consumers’ culture, subjects’ brand knowledge, brand image, and firms’ positioning strategies across countries (Aaker and Keller, 1993; Bottomley and Holden, 2001). In light of their findings, Bottomley and Holden suggest that we cannot yet make firm conclusions about how consumers evaluate brand extensions based on only a handful of studies. They call for replication and secondary analysis so as to continue the development of knowledge in this area and to increase the level of confidence in scholarly empirical findings. In accord with Bottomley and Holden’s view, this paper examines the role of product difficulty incongruity in consumers’ brand extension evaluations, where the incongruity refers to the difference between consumers’ perceptions of the difficulty firms face in designing and making the parent product and the difficulty in designing and making the extension product. Aaker and Keller (1990) originally propose that the perceived difficulty of making the extension would affect consumers’ evaluation of brand extension because of a potential incongruity between a quality brand and a trivial product class. However, researchers have usually tested this hypothesis using the perceived difficulty of designing and making the extension products rather than incorporating the concept of incongruity. We argue that the incongruity as described by Aaker and Keller occurs as a result of consumers comparing two objects, one of which is the difficulty of
ARTICLE IN PRESS Y. Bao et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 340–348
designing and making the extension products. In essence, previous studies have tested the product difficulty proposition using mismatched variables. As an alternative, we propose to test this proposition by studying the incongruity between parent product difficulty and extension product difficulty. Such a view is consistent with the notion that the concept congruence between the parent product and the extension product plays an important role in consumer evaluation of brand extension (Nan, 2006; Johnson and Folks, 2007; Walchli, 2007). In addition, conceptually, product difficulty incongruity could reflect two scenarios. One possibility, according to Aaker and Keller (1990), suggests that a quality brand extends to a trivial product class (e.g., Heineken beer extends to popcorn). Another suggests that a quality brand extends to an even more complex and difficult product category (e.g., McDonald’s meal extends to theme park). Researchers have provided substantial arguments for the first scenario but have ignored the second scenario. This theoretical gap, together with the observed mismatch between theory and measurements, may further explain the lack of consensus in earlier work regarding the effect of extension product difficulty on consumer evaluations of brand extensions. The current research aims to address such gaps in the brand extension literature. We report results from two incremental studies. Study 1 verifies that product difficulty incongruity indeed contributes to consumers’ evaluations of brand extensions better than does the extension product difficulty. Further, the impact of incongruity appears more salient given higher quality parent brands. Study 2 replicates the findings in Study 1, and also demonstrates how a personality variable, need for cognition (NFC), interacts with product difficulty incongruity; the effect of incongruity appears stronger for individuals with high NFC. This strongly supports the reasoning of Aaker and Keller (1990). Overall, the findings suggest important implications for both researchers and managerial practices.
341
different perceptions of the parent brand in the first place. Alternatively, two individuals might perceive different amount of incongruity between a parent brand and its extension, even if they perceive the same levels of difficulty in designing and making the extension products, because they have different perceptions of the parent brand in the first place. Thus, it would be problematic in testing the DIFFICULT hypothesis as proposed by Aaker and Keller if one supplants the perceived incongruity with the perceived difficulty of the extension product. Unfortunately, that’s what previous studies have been doing. When applied in regression models, perceived difficulty and perceived incongruity show similar effects only when the difficulty perception of the parent brand is the same across consumers. Second, Aaker and Keller appear to have considered only one side of brand extension, i.e., a quality brand extending to a relatively simple or easy-to-make product category. However, a firm might decide to extend a quality brand to a more difficult and more complex product category. For example, the brewer of Budweiser beer extended to the amusement park industry, creating Busch Gardens, and Honda extended to the automobile industry from its original motorcycle business. In such a case, Aaker and Keller’s argument would not apply because such an extension is not a trivial event any more, thus price exploitation would not be an issue. Rather, it would be a challenge for the focal company. A different judgmental process might have formed in consumers’ mind should the perceived incongruity still affect consumers’ attitude toward the extension. In summary, in order to examine the role of product difficulty in consumer evaluations of brand extensions as originally theorized by Aaker and Keller, we must pursue the concept of difficulty incongruity rather than only pursue the perceived difficulty of the extension product.
2.2. Effect of product difficulty incongruity 2. Conceptual development 2.1. Product difficulty vs. difficulty incongruity As previously discussed, past research suggests a number of factors might account for the inconsistency of empirical results relating to Aaker and Keller’s (1990) hypothesis on product difficulty. However, the possibility of a theory-measurement mismatch remains unexplored. Aaker and Keller (p. 30) note that ‘‘when consumers perceived the extended product class to be ‘trivial’ or very easy to make (i.e., DIFFICULT is low), a potential incongruity occurs. The consumers may view the combination of a quality brand and a trivial product class as inconsistent or even exploitative. The incongruity itself may trigger a rejection or it might lead to a judgment that the quality name will add a price higher than is justified and necessary for such a product.’’ Based on this logic, they conjecture that ‘‘the relationship between the difficulty of making the product class of the extension, DIFFICULT, and the attitude toward the extension is positive.’’ Consider two issues here. First, what Aaker and Keller propose is a potential incongruity between a quality brand and a ‘‘trivial’’ extension product. As such, two components should be present. One is the perception of the difficulty level of manufacturing the parent brand, and the other is the perception of the difficulty level of manufacturing the extension product. It is the difference between these two difficulty perceptions that represents the potential incongruity. Two individuals might perceive the same amount of incongruity between a parent brand and its extension, even if they perceive different levels of difficulty in designing and making the extension products, because they have
Following Aaker and Keller’s original conceptualization, we define product difficulty incongruity in brand extensions as the discrepancy between consumers’ perceived difficulty in designing and making the parent product category and that in designing and making the extension product category. When the perceived difficulty of the parent product category exceeds that of the extension category, the difficulty incongruity may lead consumers to judge that the parent brand may charge a price higher than justified and necessary for the extension product. However, when the perceived difficulty of the parent product category is lower than that of the extension category, consumers would employ a different heuristic. Such an inconsistency may make consumers suspicious and uncertain about the company’s capability and experience in making the extension product, thus worsening their attitudes toward the brand extensions. We thus propose the following hypothesis: H1. Difficulty incongruity has a negative impact on consumer evaluations of brand extensions. As previously discussed, when consumers perceive greater difficulty in making the parent product than making the extension product, they may view the extension as an exploitative attempt and thus exhibit negative attitude toward the extension. A high quality brand is usually priced higher than a low quality brand. This would give a high quality brand more opportunities and greater momentum to charge a high price for its extension products. This is exactly what consumers are concerned about. Therefore, the perception of a high parent brand quality can reinforce the negative effect of difficulty incongruity, resulting in
ARTICLE IN PRESS 342
Y. Bao et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 340–348
a greater likelihood for consumers to attribute an exploitation motive to the extension practice. When consumers perceive greater difficulty in making the extension product than making the parent product, they may question its capability to deliver high quality in the extension, leading to an unfavorable attitude toward the extension. Firms engage in brand extensions with the hope that the positive attitude toward the parent product will transfer to the extensions. The higher the parent product quality, the higher expectations consumers will have about the brand, creating greater challenges for the manufacturer to develop the extension and match up such expectations. Thus, the same amount of difficulty incongruity would have a greater impact on consumers’ attitudes toward brand extensions for a high-quality parent brand than for lowquality parent brand. These arguments lead to the following hypothesis:
measures for parent brand quality, attitude toward the extension, and perceived fit (transferability, complementarity, and substitutability), perceived difficulty of making products (for both the extension product and the parent product) are adopted from Aaker and Keller (1990). Among them, attitude toward the extension was measured by two items and the rest by single items, all on 7-point Likert scales. The two items measuring attitude toward the extension resulted in high reliability, ranging from .80 to .85 across the various extensions. Consistent with the conceptualization, we measure the product difficulty incongruity as the absolute difference between the perceived difficulty of making the parent product and that of making the extension product. Thus, the incongruity score ranges from 0 to 6, with a greater score meaning higher incongruity. Table 1 shows the means and correlations for these variables.
H2. The negative impact of difficulty incongruity on consumers’ attitude toward brand extensions is stronger when the perceived quality of the parent brand is high than when it is low.
3.3. Analyses and results
3. Study 1
Comparisons with previous studies: As a replication of Aaker and Keller (1990), we first ran the following moderated regression model (cf. Aiken and West, 1991; Jaccard et al., 1990): Attitude toward the extension ¼ b0 þ b1 qualityþ b2 transferability þb3 complementarityþ b4 substitutability
3.1. Stimuli and procedure To test the research hypotheses, we gathered survey data from an empirical study. Pretests were conducted to assure that the products and brands used in the study were familiar, affordable, and represented relatively good quality to respondents. As a result, we selected four as parent brands: Texas Instruments calculators, Bounty paper towels, Timex watches, and Glad trash bags. Each brand was extended to six different products: bar soap, personal computer, laundry detergent, ball point pen, ketchup, and instant soup. Thus, in total, the study featured four parent brands and 24 proposed extensions. To reduce potential fatigue among the respondents, we designed and administered eight different questionnaires, each consisting of one of the four parent brands and three hypothetical extensions (see Appendix A for the experimental design). Respondents were asked to indicate their perceptions of parent brand quality, extension evaluation, and the fit between the parent brands and the extensions. In total, 210 college students participated in the study as a course requirement. They were randomly disbursed to the eight extension conditions. 3.2. Measures Consistent with past studies (Bottomley and Doyle, 1996; Bottomley and Holden, 2001; Sunde and Brodie, 1993), our
þ b5 quality transferabilityþ b6 quality complementarityþ b7 quality substitutabilityþ b8 difficulty þ error: This regression model contains three two-way interaction terms, representing the moderating effects of fit variables. To minimize possible multicollinearity in the regression containing interaction terms, each scale utilized in constructing the interaction terms was mean centered (Aiken and West, 1991; Jaccard et al., 1990). As a result of this mean-centering procedure, no substantial correlations between the interaction terms and their components remained. The largest variance inflation factor (VIF) in the regression containing interaction terms is 1.83 (see Table 2), substantially lower than the critical multicollinearity threshold of 10.0 (Myers, 1990). Therefore, multicollinearity does not appear to be a significant concern in this regression. Further examination of the regression results (see Table 2) indicates that the estimated model explains 25% of variation in brand extension evaluation, an amount significantly greater than zero (F ¼26.75, df¼8, po.001). Consistent with Aaker and Keller (1990), as well as most other subsequent studies (see Bottomley and Holden, 2001 for a review), the perceived product class fit measures-transferability, complementarity, and substitutability – all have statistically significant or marginally significant positive effects on consumers’ attitudes toward brand extensions (for complementarity, t ¼1.71, p¼ .09).
Table 1 Correlations, means, and standard deviations in Study 1.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Variable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Parent brand quality Brand extension evaluation Transferability Complementarity Substitutability Difficulty of making extension product Difficulty incongruity
1.00 .05 .07 .00 .04 .08* .04
1.00 .48** .33** .38** .18** .26**
1.00 .55** .56** .27** .24**
1.00 .41** .18** .17**
1.00 .23** .20**
1.00 .07
1.00
Mean S.D.
5.22 1.49
3.12 1.79
2.90 1.93
3.01 2.14
2.54 1.97
4.01 1.89
1.63 1.72
Note: *p o .05, ** p o.01.
ARTICLE IN PRESS Y. Bao et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 340–348
However, the main effect of the perceived quality of the parent brand is not significant. This differs from findings in past studies, as summarized by Bottomley and Holden (2001), wherein the perceived quality of the parent brand has a positive significant effect on consumers’ attitudes toward brand extensions. We suspect that this reflects the relatively skewed distribution of perceived quality of the parent brand in our data (mean¼5.22, S.D.¼1.49, skewness¼ .66). On the other hand, Bottomley and Holden find that at the individual brand extension level, 43.8% of the extension scenarios, parent brand quality has no significant effect on consumers’ attitudes toward brand extensions. Thus, this insignificant effect is not completely surprising. Regarding the moderating effects, none of the three interactions between product fit and perceived quality of the parent brand emerges as significant. This is not unexpected given the lack of consensus on these effects in previous studies (Bottomley and Holden, 2001). The main effect of the perceived difficulty of extension products also appears insignificant. Bottomley and Holden indicate that about half of the previous studies they reviewed reported insignificance with respect to this relationship, although every study that modeled the effect found a positive sign, as we do.
Table 2 Results based on Aaker and Keller’s (1990) model in Study 1. Independent variables
Unstd. B Std. error tValue
Constant 3.12 Parent brand quality .03 Transferability .33 Complementarity .06 Substitutability .14 Parent quality transferability .01 Parent quality complementarity .02 Parent quality substitutability .03 Difficulty of making brand extension .04
.06 .04 .04 .04 .04 .03 .02 .03 .03
50.19 .60 7.54 1.71 3.69 .34 .99 1.27 1.06
Sig. VIF
.00 .55 .00 .09 .00 .73 .32 .21 .29
1.02 1.83 1.49 1.53 1.62 1.34 1.45 1.10
Note: Adjusted r2 ¼.26, sample size¼630.
343
Overall, using the model developed by Aaker and Keller (1990), our study shows patterns of results similar to those seen in previous studies. This lends support to the validity of our experimental design and the resulting data. Hypothesis testing: Hypothesis 1 predicts that the incongruity between the perceived difficulty of making the parent product and that of making the extension product has a negative impact on brand extension evaluation. Further, Hypothesis 2 suggests that the impact of this incongruity is stronger when the perceived quality of parent brand is high. To test these hypotheses, we replace the difficulty of making brand extension in the preceding regression model with the difficulty incongruity. Also, we drop the interaction terms between the product fit variables and perceived quality of parent brand for simplicity, since they emerged as insignificant in the first model. This is consistent with Bottomley and Holden’s (2001) notion that the interactions between parent brand quality and the fit variables explains very little additional variance in the consumers’ attitude toward brand extensions (3.8% on average). To test H2, we add an interaction term between difficulty incongruity and parent brand quality to the regression model. As before, measures were mean centered to reduce multicollinearity. Results are presented in Table 3. VIF values in the regression range between 1.01 and 1.81, indicating little concern for multicollinearity. With the presence of both interaction effect and main effect, the interaction effect is examined first. The coefficient is negative and marginally significant (b¼ .04, p ¼.09), supporting H2. Main effects are interpreted in the context of interactions. We divided the sample into three groups based on the perceived parent brand quality, one group with high perceived quality, the second group with middle level of perceived quality, and the third group with low perceived quality. The uneven distribution of cases reflects the predominance of middle-level values in the full sample. A mean comparison between the high and low quality groups indicates significant difference in quality perception of parent brands (Mlowquality ¼3.27, Mhighquality ¼6.53, po.001). Regressions with main effects were then run only in the high and low parent quality groups (see Table 3). Results indicate that
Table 3 Effect of product incongruity in Study 1. Independent variables
Unstd. B
Std. error
t-Value
Sig.
VIF
Constant Parent brand quality Transferability Complementarity Substitutability Difficulty incongruity Difficulty incongruity parent quality
Full sample (n¼ 630) 3.12 .04 .30 .04 .13 .16 .04 Adjusted r2 ¼.27
.06 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .02
51.06 .92 7.13 1.22 3.47 4.24 1.70
.00 .36 .00 .22 .00 .00 .09
1.01 1.81 1.50 1.50 1.08 1.03
Constant Transferability Complementarity Substitutability Difficulty incongruity
High parent brand quality group (n ¼ 153) 3.14 .14 .27 .09 .05 .07 .14 .08 .25 .08 Adjusted r2 ¼.32
23.08 3.00 .75 1.78 3.00
.00 .00 .45 .08 .00
2.28 1.64 1.85 1.17
Constant Transferability Complementarity Substitutability Difficulty incongruity
Low parent brand quality group (n ¼177) 3.20 .10 .36 .07 .11 .06 .25 .06 .00 .06 2 Adjusted r ¼.35
31.07 5.31 1.87 4.00 .04
.00 .00 .06 .00 .97
1.37 1.23 1.24 1.12
ARTICLE IN PRESS 344
Y. Bao et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 340–348
the effect of difficulty incongruity is significant for the high parent quality group (b¼ .25, p¼.00) but insignificant for the low parent quality group (b ¼ .00, p¼ .97). Such results clearly validate H2 and further partially support H1 in the sense that H1 stands when parent quality is high. 3.4. Discussion Consistent with our theoretical proposition, Study 1 shows that the incongruity between the perceived difficulty of parent brand and that of the extension product, as opposed to the perceived difficulty of the extension product itself, has a significant impact on consumers’ attitudes toward brand extensions (H1). Further, such impact appears more salient when the perceived quality of parent brand is high (H2), due to the heightened expectation of a high quality brand. This is fully consistent with Aaker and Keller’s (1990) reasoning of potential incongruity, although previous studies use the perceived difficulty of the extension product to test the reasoning. Given that Study 1 is the first but a single study that examines H1 and H2, replication is needed to generalize the results. Further, although results of Study 1 are consistent with our theoretical reasoning, strictly speaking the rationale itself was not directly tested. As in most research studies, we used the results to indirectly infer the rationale’s soundness. Additional studies examining the rationale from different angles would help rule out potential alternative explanations and increase our confidence in the theory (Klink and Smith, 2001). Therefore, a second study is conducted with two goals. First, it aims to replicate the findings in study 1. Second, it aims to test the rationale underlying H1 and H2 from a different perspective.
4. Study 2 Aaker and Keller (1990, p. 30) argue that the potential incongruity ‘‘may trigger a rejection or it might lead to a judgment that the quality name will add a price higher than is justified and necessary’’ for the extension product. Alternatively, we argue that when the extension product difficulty exceeds that of the parent product, consumers may become suspicious of the company’s capability. In either case, the judgment requires a careful scrutiny of the product cues provided and a deep processing of information by consumers. From an experimentaldesign perspective, such judgments would require considerable mental effort and evaluation by survey respondents. Research in the personality literature has shown that not all people enjoy these sorts of mental activities (see Bettman, 1986; Fiske and Taylor, 1984). Cacioppo and Petty (1982) developed a measure of an individual’s tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive activities, a tendency known as the need for cognition (NFC). Individuals who exhibit greater NFC have a greater intrinsic motivation to engage in effortful cognitive analyses than other individuals, as shown in many subsequent studies (e.g., Cacioppo et al., 1984; Srull et al., 1985). Cacioppo et al. (1986) indicate that individuals with high NFC are more likely to engage in intensive information processing and elaborate cognitively on the information before form attitudes toward the objectives relevant in decision making than those with low NFC. Therefore, individuals with high NFC will engage more mental efforts to process and evaluate the product incongruity information, and more likely to draw the negative attributions about incongruent product extension. As a result, the effect of product difficulty incongruity on consumers’ attitudes toward extensions should emerge as more salient for individuals exhibiting relatively high NFC. This is summarized as the following hypothesis:
H3. The negative impact of difficulty incongruity on consumers’ attitude toward brand extensions is more salient for consumers with high NFC than for consumers with low NFC. 4.1. Stimuli and procedure As in Study 1, we conducted a pretest to develop stimuli by choosing the appropriate brands for the original products and designing sensible brand extensions. Study 1 contains parent brands and extensions in various industries. However, in order to make it easier for the participants to compare the levels of difficulty of making the parent and extension products, we limited both the parent and extension products in the electronics or related industries. This also increased the ‘‘fit’’ between the parent and extension products, making the stimuli more realistic. In total, 37 students participated in the pretest and responded to questions on brand familiarity and perceived quality. Based on the results, we selected four brands for the parent products: Texas Instruments (TI) calculators, Timex watches, Gateway computers, and Olympus cameras. Based on these four parent brands, six brand extensions were chosen: cell phone, pocket PC, printer, battery, recordable compact disc (CD-R), and disposable camera. Thus, this study featured a total of 4 parent brands and 24 proposed brand extensions. As in Study 1, we used eight questionnaires to reduce potential fatigue among the respondents. Each questionnaire consisted of one of the four parent brands and three extensions (see Appendix A for details of the stimuli). Respondents were asked to indicate their perception of parent brand quality, extension evaluations, fit of the brand extensions, and difficulty of manufacturing the parent and extension products. We also measured respondents’ need for cognition and basic demographic information. In total, 240 college students participated, disbursed fairly evenly among the eight questionnaires. Measures for parent brand quality, brand extension evaluation and perceived fit (substitutability, complementarity, and transferability), difficulty of making parent brands and the extension, and difficulty incongruity were the same as in Study 1. We measured need for cognition using the 18-item short form developed by Cacioppo et al. (1984). Sample items include ‘‘The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me’’ and ‘‘I feel relief rather than satisfaction completing a task that required a lot mental effort.’’ All items were on 7-point Likert scales anchoring from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to ‘‘strongly agree.’’ The NFC measure yields a Cronbach alpha of .88. The average of all the items is used as NFC in the following analyses, with a larger score representing higher NFC. Table 4 shows the means and correlations for these variables. 4.2. Analyses and results Comparisons with previous studies: As a replication, we first reran the moderated regression model (1); see Table 5. As in Study 1, scales were mean centered to reduce multicollinearity. The largest variance inflation factor (VIF) in the regression containing interaction terms is 1.44, indicating minimal multicollinearity. Consistent with Study 1 as well as most studies in the literature, the perceived product class fit variables exhibit positive significant effects on consumers’ attitudes toward brand extensions. In Study 1, the main effect of the perceived quality of the parent brand emerged statistically insignificant, but the effect is significant here (b¼.25, p ¼.00), consistent with findings in the literature (Bottomley and Holden, 2001). We suspected that the earlier insignificance of this effect reflected the relatively skewed distribution of perceived quality of the parent brand in the data
ARTICLE IN PRESS Y. Bao et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 340–348
345
Table 4 Correlations, means, and standard deviations in Study 2.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Variable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Parent brand quality Brand extension evaluation Transferability Complementarity Substitutability Difficulty of making extension product Difficulty incongruity Need for Cognition
1.00 .28** .06 .00 .05 .08* .01 .14**
1.00 .30** .18** .23** .09* .06 .13**
1.00 .37** .42** .16** .14** .09*
1.00 .16** .08* .04 .10**
1.00 .14** .02 .18**
1.00 .17** .03
1.00 .01
1.00
5.00 1.49
3.96 1.50
4.24 1.57
4.08 2.21
3.59 2.28
4.71 1.74
1.16 1.40
4.63 1.10
Mean S.D. Note: *p o .05, **p o.01.
Table 5 Results based on Aaker and Keller’s (1990) model in Study 2. Independent variables
Unstd. B Std. error tValue
Constant 3.91 Parent brand quality .25 Transferability .20 Complementarity .05 Substitutability .08 Parent quality transferability .05 Parent quality complementarity .01 Parent quality substitutability .00 Difficulty of making brand extension .01
.15 .04 .04 .03 .03 .03 .02 .02 .03
25.97 7.23 5.13 2.14 3.15 1.97 .48 .07 .34
Sig. VIF
.00 .00 .00 .03 .00 .05 .63 .95 .74
1.02 1.40 1.17 1.23 1.44 1.09 1.38 1.06
Note: Adjusted r2 ¼.17, sample size¼720.
(mean¼ 5.22, S.D. ¼1.49, skewness¼ .66). So, in Study 2, we tried to improve the data distribution by selecting brands of moderate quality. This appears to work. The perceived quality of the parent brand exhibits less Skewness than in Study 1 (mean¼ 5.00, S.D. ¼1.49, skewness¼ .46). Consequently, the results appear more in accord with previous research. The interaction between product transferability and perceived parent quality emerges as significant (b¼.05, p ¼.05). However, as in Study 1, neither of the other two interactions (complementarity quality, substitutability quality) is significant, nor does the main effect of the perceived difficulty of extension products achieve significance. These outcomes are not surprising given the lack of consensus on these effects in previous studies. Overall, using the model developed by Aaker and Keller, Study 2 shows similar patterns in results to Study 1 and previous studies in the literature. This lends support to the essential validity of our experimental design and data in Study 2. Hypothesis testing: In order to test our hypotheses, we once again replaced extension difficulty with difficulty incongruity. Specifically, we regressed brand extension evaluation on parent brand quality, the fit measures, difficulty incongruity, NFC, the interaction term between parent brand quality and difficulty incongruity, and the interaction term between difficulty incongruity and NFC. As before, scales were mean centered to reduce multicollinearity caused by interaction terms. Results are presented in Table 6. The interaction between parent brand quality and difficulty incongruity emerges as negative and significant (b¼ .07, p ¼.01), consistent with H2. We further divided the sample into three groups based on the perceived parent brand quality, one group with high perceived quality, the second group with middle level of perceived quality, and the third group with low perceived quality. A mean comparison between the high and low quality groups indicates significant difference in quality perception of
parent brands (Mlowquality ¼3.28, Mhighquality ¼6.44, po.001). We estimated regressions with main effects only for the high and low parent quality groups. Results reveal a negative, marginally significant main effect of difficulty incongruity in the high quality group, but an insignificant effect in the low quality group. As in Study 1, the results support H1 when the perceived parent brand quality is high. The interaction between NFC and difficulty incongruity is negative and significant (b¼ .10, p ¼.00), consistent with H3. We further divided the sample into three groups based on NFC, one group with high NFC, the second group with middle level of NFC, and the third group with low NFC. A mean comparison between groups of high and low levels of NFC indicates significant difference in NFC (Mlow NFC ¼3.48, Mhigh NFC ¼5.87, po.001). Regressions with only main effects were run in the high and low NFC groups (see Table 6). Results show that the main effect of difficulty incongruity is negative and significant for the high NFC group, but not significant for the low NFC group. It appears that difficulty incongruity affects the brand extension evaluation only if consumers carefully process such information in mind. 4.3. Discussion In general, Study 2 replicates the results of Study 1 in supporting H1 and H2. This consistency between Studies 1 and 2 illustrates robustness of the current findings. Further, by using a personality variable, NFC, Study 2 demonstrates that product difficulty incongruity, a highly abstract concept, affects consumer evaluations of brand extensions only if they carefully scrutinize such information. This supports the underlying rationale regarding the impact of product difficulty incongruity proposed by Aaker and Keller (1990) and extended in the current study.
5. General discussion 5.1. Theoretical implications Since Aaker and Keller’s (1990) seminal article in brand extension, a substantial body of research in this field has appeared. Marketing scholars generally suspect that the perceived difficulty of designing and making an extension product category greatly impacts consumer evaluations of brand extensions (Bottomley and Holden, 2001). However, no consensus regarding the effect of the extension product difficulty has emerged in previous empirical studies. The current research suggests that there may be a mismatch in the literature between the hypothesis test and Aaker and Keller’s original conceptualization. It is the product difficulty incongruity rather than the extension product difficulty itself that should be used in the tests. Results of two
ARTICLE IN PRESS 346
Y. Bao et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 340–348
Table 6 Effect of product incongruity in Study 2. Independent variables
Unstd. B
Std. error
t-Value
Sig.
VIF
Constant Parent brand quality Transferability Complementarity Substitutability Difficulty incongruity Need for cognition (NFC) Parent quality difficulty incongruity NFC difficulty incongruity
Full sample (n¼ 720) 3.97 .25 .18 .05 .08 .00 .06 .07 .10 Adjusted r2 ¼ .18
.05 .04 .04 .03 .03 .04 .06 .02 .03
78.62 7.22 4.78 2.01 3.21 .01 1.05 2.81 3.11
.00 .00 .00 .05 .00 .99 .30 .01 .00
1.02 1.40 1.17 1.25 1.05 1.66 1.03 1.62
Constant Transferability Complementarity Substitutability Difficulty incongruity
High parent brand quality group (n ¼ 291) 4.30 .08 .22 .07 .04 .04 .08 .04 .11 .06 Adjusted r2 ¼ .14
50.77 3.24 .93 1.85 1.81
.00 .00 .35 .07 .07
1.67 1.23 1.38 1.07
Constant Transferability Complementarity Substitutability Difficulty incongruity
Low parent brand quality group (n¼245) 3.51 .09 .13 .07 .06 .04 .06 .05 .09 .06 2 Adjusted r ¼ .07
39.69 1.99 1.36 1.34 1.41
.00 .05 .18 .18 .16
1.45 1.09 1.34 1.02
Constant Parent brand quality Transferability Complementarity Substitutability Difficulty incongruity
High NFC group (n ¼231) 3.85 .30 .21 .07 .01 .17 Adjusted r2 ¼ .19
.09 .06 .07 .04 .05 .07
40.50 5.04 3.11 1.69 .26 2.67
.00 .00 .00 .09 .79 .01
1.01 1.54 1.15 1.33 1.03
Constant Parent brand quality Transferability Complementarity Substitutability Difficulty incongruity
Low NFC group (n ¼ 246) 3.99 .22 .16 .06 .10 .02 Adjusted r2 ¼ .14
.09 .06 .06 .05 .04 .06
45.34 3.62 2.51 1.25 2.33 .38
.00 .00 .01 .21 .02 .70
1.04 1.33 1.18 1.12 1.03
empirical studies support this argument. We also find that the negative impact of difficulty incongruity on consumers’ attitudes toward brand extensions is more salient with high levels of quality of parent brand and need for cognition. This strongly supports the original conceptualization of Aaker and Keller and provides a potential explanation for the inconsistency in the literature regarding the effect of product difficulty on consumer evaluations of brand extensions. The concept of difficulty incongruity reconciles well with the ‘‘fit’’ or ‘‘similarity’’ concept, which Keller (2002) identifies as a key determinant of how consumers evaluate brand extensions. Much previous brand extension research employs a categorization perspective to investigate consumers’ cognitive evaluation processes (Broniarczyk and Alba, 1994; Boush and Loken, 1991; Chakravarti et al., 1990). The categorization perspective suggests that the greater the feature overlaps between items, the greater the likelihood that consumers will perceive the items as belonging to the same cognitive category, and thus base their evaluations of the extension on their attitudes toward the parent brand. Besides the three dimensions of fit (transferability, complementarity, and substitutability), difficulty incongruity itself represents a type of ‘‘fit,’’ as it captures the similarity
between the parent brand and the extension product in terms of the difficulty of making them. The current research may serve to broaden the concept of ‘‘fit’’ as employed in the brand extension research, in that difficulty incongruity appears to have a significant influence on consumer evaluations of brand extensions just as other fit dimensions do.
5.2. Managerial implications Marketers commonly use brand extensions as a way to capitalize on established brands, because such extensions can facilitate acceptance of the new product or service. Firms often produce an extended brand to take advantage of manufacturing and marketing synergies between the two products. The technological synergies often appear meaningful to consumers and may provide the basis for a perceived similarity between the parent and extension product categories (Chakravarti et al., 1990). Our results demonstrate that a company should consider not only the difficulty level of the extension but also the difficulty level of the parent product category. A downward shifting of difficulty level from parent product to the extension product will make the
ARTICLE IN PRESS Y. Bao et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 340–348
extension practice vulnerable to consumers’ suspicions of the company’s exploitation intention. On the other hand, an upward shifting of difficulty level will also cause consumers to question the quality of the extension because such extension might lie beyond the company’s technological capability. As an example, Harley Davidson might reasonably extend its brand to either passenger cars or motor scooters, given favorable transferability, complementarity and substitutability characteristics. But the difficulty incongruity between making motorcycles and passenger cars or motor scooters might lead to unfavorable consumer evaluations of these extensions. Marketing practitioners must be very cautious and consider potential consumer responses when attempting to capitalize their technology advantage into brand extensions.
5.3. Future research As with most research, insights lead to additional questions. There are three conceptual caveats merit further theoretical elaboration and empirical investigation. First, this study does not distinguish two different scenarios of difficulty incongruity: when the parent product is perceived to be more difficult to make than the extension and the reverse. As we argued earlier, the difficulty incongruity may lead to an unfavorable attitude toward the extension but with different rationales. For the first scenario, consumers might perceive the extension as an exploitative attempt of the manufacturer to capitalize on a strong brand image, whereas in the second scenario, consumers may question the extension because they suspect it lies beyond the company’s technological capability. Future research identifying consumers’ rationales in the evaluative process for these two situations will help us further understand the effect of difficulty incongruity and develop the appropriate marketing mix to promote the extension.
347
Secondly, in Hypothesis 2, we propose that difficulty incongruity will have a weaker negative impact on evaluation of the extension when the quality of parent product is low, because overall consumers will have lower expectations for low quality parent brands. However, an alternative explanation to this moderating effect is that parent brands with lower quality may simply result in uniformly weak evaluations of the extensions, regardless of the level of difficulty incongruity. Future research designed to elucidate this alternative explanation can provide further understanding of the rationale of this moderating effect. In addition, we propose a moderating effect of NFC to manifest the mechanism through which product incongruity negatively impact extension evaluation. However, this study does not explicitly manipulate subjects’ motivation to process the information about difficulty incongruity. Therefore, it still does not provide direct evidence of the role of NFC. Further research is merited to explicate the rationale of the negative impact of difficulty incongruity. Although the current study suggests an explanation for the inconsistency in previous research regarding the role of product difficulty in consumer evaluations of brand extensions, other inconsistencies remain. For example, as Bottomley and Holden (2001) discusses, inconsistencies also exist regarding the effects of interactions between the parent brand quality and fit variables on consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Their call for both replication and secondary analyses in the development of empirical generalizations remains compelling.
Appendix A See Table A1 for the experimental design and details of the stimuli.
Table A1 Experiment designs and cell means. Parent products
Mean of quality perception
Extension products
Mean of attitude toward extension
Mean of difficulty incongruity
Study 1 Texas instruments (TI) calculators
5.98
Bar soap Personal computer Laundry detergent Ball pen Ketchup Instant soup
2.40 5.06 2.52 5.10 1.54 1.36
2.32 .84 2.16 1.72 3.24 3.48
Bounty paper towels
4.84
Bar soap Personal computer Laundry detergent Ball pen Ketchup Instant soup
3.69 1.90 3.92 3.66 3.20 3.02
.96 2.96 1.11 .96 1.12 1.92
Timex watches
5.19
Bar soap Personal computer Laundry detergent Ball pen Ketchup Instant soup
2.63 3.78 2.55 4.76 2.14 2.14
1.25 3.29 1.04 .63 1.00 1.13
Glad trash bags
4.84
Bar soap Personal computer Laundry detergent Ball pen Ketchup Instant soup
2.63 2.08 2.69 4.23 3.45 3.28
.85 1.00 .85 1.48 2.36 2.32
Study 2 Texas instruments (TI) calculators
5.98
Cell phone Pocket pc
3.68 4.30
1.03 1.28
ARTICLE IN PRESS 348
Y. Bao et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 340–348
Table A1 (continued ) Parent products
Mean of quality perception
Extension products
Mean of attitude toward extension
Mean of difficulty incongruity
Printer Battery Cd-R Disposable camera
4.05 4.52 4.21 3.91
1.03 .86 1.31 1.34
Timex watches
4.82
Cell phone Pocket pc Printer Battery CD-R Disposable camera
3.66 3.68 3.63 4.53 4.07 3.77
1.42 1.77 1.48 .63 1.27 1.20
Gateway computers
4.83
Cell phone Pocket pc Printer Battery CD-R Disposable Camera
3.00 3.82 4.35 4.20 4.68 4.00
.60 .77 1.27 1.40 1.10 2.03
Olympus cameras
4.36
Cell Phone Pocket pc Printer Battery CD-R Disposable camera
3.71 3.69 3.95 3.74 3.74 4.29
.68 .78 .96 1.26 1.19 1.10
References Aaker, D.A., Keller, K.L., 1990. Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing 54 (1), 27–41. Aaker, D.A., Keller, K.L., 1993. Interpreting cross-cultural replications of brand extension research. International Journal of Research in Marketing 10 (1), 55–59. Aiken, L.S., West, S.G., 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, London. Barwise, P. (Ed.), 1993. Editorial: introduction to the special issue on brand equity, International Journal of Research in Marketing 10 (1), 3–8. Bettman, J.R., 1986. Consumer psychology. Annual Review of Psychology 37, 257–290. Bottomley, P.A., Doyle, J.R., 1996. The formation of attitudes towards brand extensions: testing and generalizing Aaker and Keller’s model. International Journal of Research in Marketing 13 (4), 365–377. Bottomley, P.A., Holden, S.J.S., 2001. Do we really know how consumers evaluate brand extensions? Empirical generalizations based on secondary analysis of eight studies. Journal of Marketing Research 38 (November), 494–500. Boush, D., Loken, B., 1991. A process tracing study of brand extension evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research 28 (2), 16–28. Bridges, S., Keller, K., Sood, S., 2000. Communication strategies for brand extensions: enhancing perceived fit by establishing explanatory links. Journal of Advertising 29 (4), 1–11. Broniarczyk, S.M., Alba, J.W., 1994. The importance of the brand in brand extension. Journal of Marketing Research 31 (2), 214–228. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., 1982. The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42, 116–131. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Kao, C.F., 1984. The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment 48 (3), 306–307. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Kao, C.F., Rodriguez, R., 1986. Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: an individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 1032–1043. Chakravarti, D., MacInnis, D.J., Nakamoto, K., 1990. Product category perspective, elaborative processing and brand name. In: Golberg, G., Pllay, R. (Eds.),
Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 17. Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 910–916. Czellar, S., 2003. Consumer attitude toward brand extensions: an integrative model and research proposition. International Journal of Research in Marketing 20 (1), 97–115. Fiske, S.T., Taylor, S., 1984. Social Cognition. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., Wan, C.K., 1990. Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression. Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Johnson, A.R., Folks, V., 2007. How consumers’ assessments of manufacturing a product influence quality perception. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 35 (2), 317–328. Keller, K.L., 1998. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Keller, K.L., 2002. Branding and brand management. In: Weitz, B., Wensley, R. (Eds.), Handbook of Marketing. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 151–178. Klink, R.R., Smith, D.C., 2001. Threats of the external validity of brand extension research. Journal of Marketing Research 38 (August), 326–335. Myers, R., 1990. Classical and Modern Regression with Applications, second ed. Duxbury Press, Boston, MA. Nan, X., 2006. Affective cues and brand-extension evaluation: exploring the influence of attitude toward the parent brand and attitude toward the extension ad. Psychology & Marketing 23 (7), 597–616. Shocker, A.D., Srivastava, R.K., Ruekert, R.W., 1994. Challenges and opportunities facing brand management: an introduction to the special issue. Journal of Marketing Research 31 (2), 149–158. Srull, T., Lichenstein, M., Rothbart, M., 1985. Associated storage and retrieval processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 11 (2), 316–345. Sunde, L., Brodie, R.J., 1993. Consumer evaluations of brand extensions: further empirical evidence. International Journal of Research in Marketing 10 (1), 47–53. ¨ Volckner, F., Sattler, H., 2006. Drivers of brand extension success. Journal of Marketing 70 (2), 18–34. Walchli, S.B., 2007. The effects of between-partner congruity on consumer evaluation of co-branded products. Psychology & Marketing 24 (11), 947–957.